tv [untitled] September 9, 2013 4:00pm-4:31pm PDT
the president of the local 798 who was not able to come to the committee. i wanted to read this. the firefighters have lounge been stufrn advocates for the effort to include important options for safety in the high-rises. and the firefighters will have the necessary tools whether it's a fire resistant elevators. there's been a lot of voices but first, let me reference those who may lose or gain from the decision if we choices to move forward. from any prospective given the voices on both sides it's not a relevant bunch of considerations for safety.
i agreed to sponsor this with lengthy conversations with fire professionals who at the end of the day are focused on safety. and from my prospective if the fire chief or fire department doesn't want those systems if the rank and file firefighters don't increase safety this ought not to be a system in san francisco and that's my prospective today. i hope we can move it out of committee >> supervisor kim. >> so i actually came into this hearing which i asked a lot of questions and i appreciate the fire department. to be honest, i feel uncomfortable being a layperson to vote on a policy change such as this one. we have to trust the fire
commission and fire department as well in terms of what they deem is safe. for me it seems important to go above and beyond so i was initialing to keep what it was to keep the air that you are system for our high-rise building. i think that 75 feet is two low but 1 hundred and above is important to not have to carry our air pressure system up. new york may not have those systems but it's helpful to understand what's happening internationally. i hope we talk about the case of an earthquake.
i'm concerned when we have an earthquake in a building but when we are talking about a high-rise building i have concerned or concerns about carving up equipment. and just because some of the buildings and it was helpful to hear all the sides. we have the final goal is protect the highest level of safety for our firefighters and resident as well. but it seems like with this remedies i feel comfortable moving forward. one thing i want to get clarification is one of the arguments i've heard we have an monopoly that is developing this f r system and their exporting a lot of our developers and
charging high prices for the system but tishman said it's a more affordable issue so i was weighing the cost of this. i'm getting nonprofit e-mails everyday saying they're getting priced out of our city. is it more expensive or affordable if this is more affordable then the service elevator i want more classification on. so i do want to have further discussion but i have at least
enough information inform toss this out of committee >> thank you. i also will be supporting the fire code provision as is. i as i mentioned a little while ago i'm certainly willing to disagree with the fire department but the fire department has made a good case and i don't think a good case has been made on the other side. fundamentally when you have the actual firefighters the air is there for them to breathe and keep them safe and a alive and they're saying we don't want this but on balance i think that the departments position is the correct one. i look forward to more dialog. it's okay to disagree.
i'm cost it the departments position comes from a place president what's best for the safety of the city and so side the other side. i hope we can have very, very good dialog moving forward to moor we're protecting our pedestrians having good fire safety in the city and a moving forward with the plans better streets the mayor's office pedestrian and safety plan and sforthd that many people have worked hard. so colleagues if there's no more discussion can we for the record this without objection >> madam clerk, please call item number 3 human resources. >> it's an ordinance of a map to create the shift use district
and we actually have the sponsor of that legislation supervisor cowen to introduce this item. maybe we can give a moment for folks to exit the room >> thank you supervisor cowen. >> thank you very much don't leave everyone you thought that issue was interesting. >> i'm excited and this has been a long day. this establishes a new recycle active directed between williams and egging better avenues and it requires an conditional use for any retail use in this area or any existing establishment that be seeking to expand or
intensify it's use. it's not like your typical neighborhood commercial district in san francisco. the arrests are complex. their old industrial zoning and are governed by the baby development plan. this third street is it not zoned it's m-1. it's an important distinction because there's no formula retail establishments. i introduced this legislation in response from a bunch of neighborhoods for the potential to locate a new establishment in the area. may it's changing fastnd large is for the better but if there's
anything that fresh and ease taught us it's greatly improved with the neighborhood have the opportunity to weigh in. and one vehicle this is that insures neighborhood participation. this this is an area in the city that's made investments. with the changes that are occurring in the area i felt it was important that the neighborhood and a city have the opportunity to review the input for any retail businesses or the relocation of new ones to make sure we're meeting the needs of the entire neighborhood. right now the city is currently undergoing a large review from with the goal of speedizing them. the planning commission has recommended a number of changes
to this ordnance that makes it consistent with the regulations. i'd like to bring up mr. star who can talk about the committees recommendations. >> thank you, very much. good afternoon supervisors aaron star prosecute the planning vice president. the ordinance would create the third street reformation between third street and paul street are i have a map up. i don't know if i can depreciate it on the board. so between williams avenue here and paul avenue here is industrial zone property but north and south are neighborhood districts this would fill the gap. and as the commission found this
is an unique stretch of industrial land between two neighborhood commercial districts and it serves as the third street corridor. this district will fill in the gap that could be used by others in the adjacent commercial districts. the commission heard this on july 25th and voted for approval with modifications. so this would include all properties that face third street. and this will complete the gap. the revised ordinance will have the district subject to all the controls as the former establishments in the city and
this will contain the same standards by some have been amended done in this ordinance. finally the commission ask to look at certain avenues. and my assumes is you felt those are appropriate. so as your aware we have had several ordinances introduced by supervisors that are to mainstream the controls and in response we have permission to produce a more expensive retail and i want to thank supervisor cowen to address our concerns and because of this we feel cost
moving forward having the board move forward with this without the overall division change or the shooud study we commissions being complete. so with that that concludes my presentation i'm available for questions >> so colleagues what you have before you are a series of amendments had incorporate recommendations from the planning commission that. i understand from our city attorney those requires the item to be continued for one week. i'm asking that we continue this item for one week >> and i apologize did we adopt them - >> yes. >> is there another motion to adopt the amendment from
supervisor cowen. >> that will be the or is there a motion to continue this item one week >> so move forward. >> oh, did we not take public comment. can we resend the vote on the amendment. my apologizes is there any public comment on item number 3. seeing none, public comment is closed. and can we take those without observation. those are adopted and can we have a motion to continue one week >> so moved. await objection it is continued one week and a thank you very much >> madam clerk, please call item number 4. >> it's an ordinance with the conditional use authorization of height use. >> and we have one staff member
here for item 4. >> good afternoon sophie the planning staff the item is the draft ordinance that would amended the session 842 for the mixed use area in the south market area. it's related to the size of tourist hotel that are allowed on certainty particles with the conditional use authorization. the resolution was passed on june 6th daurpt the ordinance you're considering today. and the proposed ordinance would have the tourist codes with the court instructs the jury use of 1 hundred and 5 feet or higher within the use district. i'll put up a map of the area
thank you. i have copies of the area. currently hotels are loud with the court instructs the jury use authorization provided that the hotel have fewer than 75 rooms and it will remove that but only on those particles are the height designation of 1 hundred feet and greater that are in red on the map. the 3 areas that would be changed with this ordinance are the areas that are along second street and by 2 and third street. i want to note that the area on the east side are built out already. this is the outline of the green
and the black is the west side area. as proposed in the draft ordinance the limit chance hotel controls will facilitate a project for which the committee showed support while laying great work. this is not an extensive change but only the designation of 1 hundred feet and greater. f that concludes my presentation and i believe steve is here to present as well >> okay. can you ask a quick question >> i'm sorry you had pointed out that our office let me know there are 3 potential particles that can take advantage of this change. you said that the one particle
has been built out so this leaves the two parallels; right? >> those are blocks there is a green one on the king streets for the proposed hotel that's greater. >> is there any potential sites that would be built out beyond this one in green within the red block designations. >> on the west side of what. >> second street i believe. this is with conditional use authorization >> thank you. we'll open public comment right now. >> thank you supervisors i'm
steve on behavior of david the project sponsor the hotel project that ms. hayward pointed out to you. a little bit of background on that property the planning commission approved a hotel in 2005. sthorl tlafrp my client owned that property but financing was not available speaker in the meantime, the eastern neighborhood was rezoned. and invertly there was a 75 hotel room in the zoning that was imported into the block and so when many o'keeffe went to
get his building permit we saw there was a 75 room limit and we worked back and forth but we have a counter plan of 1 hundred and 35 rooms that was improved. so the original amendment did not have the limitation of the 1 hundred and 5 districts it allowed larger hotels. some southern was raised in june on the planning commission by the leadership task force so the amendment - the code amendment was amended. i have a letter supporting the
amendment with that change. i can pass those out. >> thank you. >> and with that support of the planning support they unanimously adopted this amendment and the change will be - the hotel the small hotel. >> itself mike. >> yeah, the mike. >> actually, i have a question. i apologize i didn't realize that you're on public comment time. does the current project varies in any way from the way it was approved in 2005 >> i have an image of the hotel if you want to see it. it's a relating small hotel and a could we get this on sftv as
well. the footstep of the hotel is relating small so the ground floor is a lobby and a lobby lounge there was not room for a bar and there's a lot of concern this would be a small hotel lounge only >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you is there any additional comment on item number 4. seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues if there are no comments can we move item number 4 for positive recommendations >> so move with positive remedies. >> and can we take that out objection. madam clerk call item number 5. and the to - the ordinance for financial hardship for capital improvement costs >> and president chiu is the lead board sponsor of this item.
>> thanks to the members of the public. this is to help streamline the application process and this is legislation that i introduced with co-sponsors kim and a campos. earlier this year we passed soft story believes in the evident of future earthquakes. alongside are required to go to the amendment boards. i said that tenants who have hardships that are granted by the rent board and it takes
about 5 months to meet. this has been stemmed to reduce the legislation. and this would streamline this process based on eligibility preliminaries if tenants can demonstrate their household easterners less than 10 percent and pace more than a third of their income toward rent or if they have medical bills they would be eligible. the rent board processes the physical application. the goal of this policy change so to insure the protection of our most vulnerable building matches with the vulnerable tenants. there's shared responsibility to
keep the community resilient. i want to take a moment to thank the partners the san francisco housing committee and justice use and other. i want to thank the department of the recession staff who worked on this. we have today from the mayor's office on housing i want to thank jeff and patrick and he's here to speak on the legislation. i want to thank you all for your work it's my hope we he can move this out of the committee to protect our vulnerable tenants and buildings. i want to say i'm happy to co-sponsor this legislation.
i want to thank the mayor's office and when this legislation first came to us on the service retrofit there was no doubt in anyone's minds that the safety of our residents is seen. particularly as our rent is rising i've seen affordable units for san franciscan this type of rent increase could be the decision between living here in san francisco and moving out of the city. it's great to see we were able to follow this legislation. one of the things we've heard with experience of going through the application police radios is how arduous that process is. even before you go through the
process it could take several hours then when you go before the rent board i forgot the adjective that was used but how many tenants have to really private information and that was uncomfortable to talk about their information. reading there the legislation i believe those are largely applicants would get and this still protects the tenants and if the landlords have asked for further information their protected. and compromises on how we reform
this process. i'm happy to support this. so thanks very much to all who were engaged. i know that several applicants and, of course, the mayor's office were involved so thank you >> thank you very much and if there are no introductory comments. >> i just want to ask if any staffers have any comments. >> thank you supervisors. that maybe something pretty amazing. the board of supervisors all 3 of you included voted unanimously to take a stand to help retrofit those buildings. since then the berkley has talked about this and once in a while san francisco is a leading the way in terms of public
policy. the fact in may we received a unanimous vote on the trailers of the policy would come and so i'd like to commend the mayor and supervisor chu for following through an this promise as well as supervisor kim and a mary. we truly believe that if tenant don't have money to pay for those hopefully, we'll have a win for all parties involved. i'm available for any questions >> thank you at this point we'll open it up for public comment. maria. if there are others you can fill out a blue card in the front. hi i'm maria i'm the san francisco organizer for the organization here in the city.
i'm here to express the hardship application that tenants apply for on seismic increases. the rent in san francisco has been increasing here in san francisco and tenants are paying more than thirty percent in their rent. for rent burdened tenants the threat of any kind rent increase will be the for about that pushed them out of their home or city. it's giving them an easier process and not having to pay a higher improvement cost. fighting the pricing out of our tenants and this policys